http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10405582



Will history be repeated?

I'm not too fond of nuclear fission anyway, so I'm all for leaving the deposits be.

There are always military applications for such a find.

I am even less cordial towards such uses. I think applying the balance of powers doctrine to nuclear arsenal is the pinnacle of naïvity, since the balance of powers doctrine relied on war to prevent a break of the balance. It does not prevent war.

That and any nation will disregard it if it means increasing their power.

When did I ever mention nuclear arsenals? They could be used for manufacture of armour piercing ammunition. Nukes are out of style these days thanks to a certain pesky non-proliferation treaty. They may not be as environmentally friendly as say, those new fangled metal alloy bullets (yeah, bullets are not made of mostly lead nowadays), but I think it is a pretty good trade off. Unless you are a stickler for environmental friendliness vis a vis the country you happen to be invading, or defending.

Regarding the bolded part, I infallibly am one.

Such ammonition currently are labelled conventional weapons, but I am of the opinion they do not belong there. The use of such weapons is extremely polluting and potentially dangerous to the local population. The US have been using those in Iraq and have so far not intended to clean it up, but if they would, it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Last I heard, depleted uranium was actually being used in some hospitals to SHIELD from radiation, so either it's not as harmful as you'd assume, or... Well, asbestos 2.0?

U-238 mostly decays into alpha-particles, but also some gamma-particles.

Alpha-particles have a high momentum, but a low "dracht", because they are likely to hit particles. Basically, a sheet of paper is sufficial shielding to those. The dead layer of skin is also usually sufficient protection. However, the use of uranium for armour-piercing shells would involve those shells being destroyed, meaning that it turns into shrapnel and smaller parts. Small uranium particles could pollute people, meaning that it would be possible for the alpha-particals to destroy cells unhindered.

Then, there is still some gamma radiation, which has a way longer "dracht" and is therefore so deadly. I don't know how dangerous this is.

Well I'll be the one laughing when you run out of tungsten rounds or other non-depleted uranium armour penetrators.

Bah, war is so terribly 20th century anyway.

Again, resorting to depleted uranium shells is just too immoral for me. I know I'm a wuss.

When did Holland leave Afghanistan, again?

Anyway, cheap jokes aside, I don't actually see the point of depleted uranium shells. The Americans aren't even fighting an organized militia. I could somehow see the point of using it to defend your troops, since you can never have enough protection, but it's not like there's a lot of terrorists driving around in heavily armored tanks, so what's wrong with using just the old fashioned bullets that won't cause half the country to mutate?

What what what? DID THEY LEAVE?



Just let them recycle lightbulbs! Or switch to superalloys.

For seriously, I agree with your point, though I yet have to hear of any malign effects (of course, Iraq is not the best place for a reporter).

Eh, I imagine we'll only see the results of that in another ten to tweny years, when people have picked up enough of the mines and clusterbombs to start actively examining radiation levels. Or, you know, when a baby is born with two heads...

I take it you're the kind that will be begging for a diplomatic solution with enemies at the gate.

I'm not a pacifist. I just tend to avoid the neoconservative school of battle tactics.

That includes not completely agonising the local population by stupid decisions. Neocons win battles, but they lose wars.